Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES v. SEALE, 1930 ā 45 F.2d 394 Ā· caselaw Ā· US
Civil Procedure Ā· MBE-tested
UNITED STATES v. SEALE
45 F.2d 394Ā·United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitĀ·1930
Before BRYAN and FOSTER, Circuit Judges, and HUTCHESON, District Judge.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES v. SEALE.
No. 5973.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 1930.
Norman A. Dodge, U. S. Atty., and A. M. Mood, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Fort Worth, Tex., and Erie Eades, Regional Atty., U. S. Veteransā Bureau, of Dallas, Tex. (William Wolff Smith, Gen. Counsel, U. S. Veteransā Bureau, and Bayloss L. Guffy, Atty., U. S. Veteransā Bureau, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for the United States.
Y. D. Mathes, of Houston, Tex. (Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, of Houston, Tex., on the brief), for appellee. '
Before BRYAN and FOSTER, Circuit Judges, and HUTCHESON, District Judge.
[MAJORITY ā BRYAN, Circuit Judge.]
BRYAN, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is based on assignments of error which complain of rulings on the evidence. No error is assigned on the record proper. Appellee has filed a motion to strike the bill of exceptions on the grounds that it was not presented during the term at which judgment was entered, and that no order was made during that term extending the time for presentation and settlement of a bill of exceptions. The grounds of the motion are supported by the record; but, after the expiration of the term during which the judgment was entered, the district judge signed a nunc pro tunc order purporting to extend the time within which to present a bill of exceptions, and such bill is the one that we are asked to consider.
Appelleeās motion was well taken, as the power of the court in the absence of an extension order ended with the trial term. United States v. Jones, 149 U. S. 262, 13 S. Ct. 840, 37 L. Ed. 726; Jennings v. Philadelphia, etc., Ry. Co., 218 U. S. 255, 31 S. Ct. 1, 54 L. Ed. 1031. And such power could not be restored by a nunc pro tune order. Michigan Insurance Bank v. Eldred, 143 U. S. 293, 12 S. Ct. 450, 36 S. Ct. 162; Exporters v. Butterworth-Judson Co., 258 U. S. 365, 42 S. Ct. 331, 66 L. Ed. 663. Accordingly, appelleeās motion to strike the bill of exceptions is granted; and, there being no question for review presented by the record proper, the judgment is affirmed.